Yes,No,Maybe So: The Effects of Relationship Status on Perceptions of Inferred Consent

Abstract

Despite the notion that sexual consent is either granted or refused, its communication can sometimes be ambiguous. This uncertainty stems from the tendency to rely on implicit, nonverbal cues to indicate consent. Without clear, explicit communication, people might be encouraged to rely upon contextual information when assessing whether a sexual encounter was consensual. Perceived levels of intimacy and familiarity in a relationship might influence these perceptions, such that prior intimacy might lead to ambiguously communicated consent being interpreted as more consensual. Gender roles can dictate the behaviors expected in a sexual encounter, with female-initiated sexual violence against men potentially being perceived as more consensual than the inverse. The current study examined how relationship type (Experiments 1 and 2) and gender pairing (Experiment 2) influenced participants’ perceptions of how consensual various sexual encounters were. Participants read a series of vignettes in which sexual consent was verbally granted, verbally rejected, or inferred using nonverbal cues. Additionally, the dyads’ relationships were either described as dating, friends, or strangers. Following vignette presentation, participants provided judgments regarding how consensual the interactions were. Experiment 2 expanded upon this by manipulating the gender of the initiators and targets. When consent was not clearly indicated, more established relationships were associated with higher ratings of perceived consent. Male targets were attributed more responsibility for sexual interactions, and they were also believed to want nonconsensual sex more than female targets. These findings highlight the importance of contextual information in instances where sexual consent is unclear.

Keywords

consent sexual assault inferred consent relationship gender

Sexual violence is a widespread issue across America with one of six women and one of 33 men having been the victim of attempted or completed rape (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2020). Consent communication is a critical component in assessing whether sex was consensual. Consent is a multifaceted yet vital factor of all sexual interactions that researchers have conceptualized as being comprised of three factors: a person’s feelings (i.e., to engage in sexual activity, a person must have an internal state of willingness; Jozkowski et al., 2014b), communication (e.g., explicit or implicit words or behaviors; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999), and perceptions (e.g., active interpretation of communication cues; Willis et al., 2021a). While research has identified and delineated these three components of consent, laypeople vary with regard to what cues they believe are indicative of consensual sex (Jozkowski, Marcantonio, & Hunt, 2017).

Affirmative consent policies state that consent can only be given willingly, freely, and while sober (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). However, this is rarely how consent is communicated. People believe consent can be given verbally or nonverbally, as well as explicitly or implicitly (e.g., giving someone a condom or smiling; Jozkowski et al., 2014b; King et al., 2021). It is also not always the case that people will actively communicate their consent, as some people do not respond to or resist sexual activity when initiated by a partner (i.e., passive consent cues; Jozkowski et al., 2014b; Willis et al., 2019). Although the lack of response or resistance cannot reliably reflect a person’s willingness to engage in sex (Willis et al., 2019), it is commonly used and interpreted as cue of consent (Jozkowski et al., 2014b). There is also a distinction between internal (i.e., feelings of willingness) and external (i.e., behaviors or communication) factors of consent (see Willis et al., 2021b). Ideally, a person’s internal willingness and external communication of consent would be congruent. However, these two factors are not always synonymous, as a person might willingly consent to sexual activity that they do not truly want to engage in (i.e., sexual compliance; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010). This variation in consent communication can be problematic for individuals engaging in sexual intercourse as well as people who might be judging whether an encounter was consensual retrospectively.

In addition to the plethora of ways consent can be provided, prior work has found that men and women differ in the way they express sexual consent. Women are more likely to use indirect verbal approaches (e.g., asking if their partner has a condom) compared to men, who utilize nonverbal approaches (e.g., suggestive body language; Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; Jozkowski et al., 2014b). Research has also shown that, generally, women are usually more passive in the way they grant consent (e.g., not resisting, reciprocating, or saying no to advances; Jozkowski et al., 2017; Jozkowski & Wiersma, 2015; Walsh et al., 2019). There are also gender differences as a function of how men and women expect consent and denials of consent to be expressed. Men believe that their partners will grant sexual consent using nonverbal cues (Jozkowski et al., 2014a) and, in contrast, will indicate a denial of consent verbally (O’Byrne et al., 2008). Women are more likely to look for both verbal and nonverbal cues of sexual consent (Jozkowski et al., 2014a). This discrepancy between how men and women communicate and perceive sexual consent cues can be troublesome, especially when communication is ambiguous.

Although men and women have subtle differences in communication and perception of consent, implicit and nonverbal cues appear to be the most common form of communicating consent across both genders (Blythe et al., 2006; Muehlenhard et al., 2016; Winslett & Gross, 2008). Thus, consent is not always given verbally and explicitly in real-world sexual encounters. However, this ambiguity in communication results in people inferring whether consent has been granted by relying on nonverbal cues (Kubota & Nakazawa, 2022), which can make it difficult when assessing whether consent has been granted. This ambiguity exists not only during the sexual encounter but also can occur in retrospect when third parties assess whether they believe a sexual encounter was consensual. When sexual communication is ambiguous, people may look for other cues to assess the nature of a sexual encounter.

Cues That Influence Perceptions of Consent

When deciding if a sexual encounter was consensual, people can evaluate situational and environmental cues to help make these judgments. For example, people are more likely to interpret a sexual encounter as consensual when two individuals are alone together (Beres, 2010; Jozkowski & Willis, 2020) or if they have been drinking (Jozkowski et al., 2018). Prior sexual acts, such as consensual petting or kissing, are also seen as a precursor to consensual sex (Van Wie & Gross, 2001). Some of these contextual cues are at odds with the definition of affirmative consent (e.g., when individuals are intoxicated; Lim & Roloff, 1999) and represent an important discrepancy between how consent is defined compared to how it is interpreted by others.

Gender has been shown to influence perceptions of consent, particularly through gender norms. Men are traditionally seen as the initiators of sexual activity (Lewis et al., 2021), whereas women are commonly viewed as submissive and gatekeepers of intercourse (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). However, a woman’s denial of sexual consent is not always interpreted as a rejection, instead being seen as token resistance (Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988). These assumptions contrast with research indicating that when people deny sexual consent, they are doing so intentionally and not to further sexual interest (Koss, 1988; Muehlenhard & Rodgers, 1998). Therefore, people will be more likely to view the absence of an explicit denial as indicative of consensual sex due to their expectations of women being coy or “hard to get” (Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988). These gender norms may set certain expectations regarding what behavior actually constitutes as a rejection of consent. Gender norms might also influence perceptions of consent when the traditional gender roles are reversed. No research to date has examined how consent might be interpreted when women act as initiators to male targets. However, this dynamic may factor into perceptions regarding whether sexual consent was granted. Given that men are typically viewed as wanting sex more frequently than women (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013), and male rape myths that say men cannot be raped (Turchik & Edwards, 2012), a woman initiating unwanted sex with a man might not be perceived as rape.

Whether there is prior sexual intimacy between a dyad is an additional cue that can impact whether a sexual encounter is interpreted to be consensual (O’Byrne et al., 2008; Willis & Jozkowski, 2019). Prior established sexual intimacy can influence future perceptions of consent between partners, building a sexual script that dictates which behaviors are anticipated in future sexual activities (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Wiederman, 2005). These expectations include people assuming their partner’s sexual consent to be automatically given (Hall, 1998). This assumption is not limited to judgments between romantic partners, as third-party observers also consider established intimacy when determining the nature of a sexual encounter between dyads (Humphreys, 2007; Shotland & Goodstein, 1992). For example, women who had been intimate with their partner at least 10 times were perceived as more obligated to have sex, even after rejecting their partner’s advances and that the unwanted sex was more likely to be seen as consensual compared to couples who had not had sex (Shotland & Goodstein, 1992). This reliance on prior intimacy is particularly salient for sexual encounters where consent communication is ambiguous (Humphreys, 2007).

The relationship status of a dyad might also shape communication and perception of sexual consent. People in relationships (Blythe et al., 2006; Byers & Heinlein, 1989; Winslett & Gross, 2008) as well as third-party observers (Humphreys, 2007) expect intimate couples to frequently use nonverbal cues of sexual consent. This expectation seemingly decreases as the couple’s degree of intimacy and familiarity decreases (Humphreys, 2007). It is unclear whether the lack of familiarity, prior intimacy, or a combination of the two results in the changing of expectations for how consent will be communicated, but this is an important distinction. Sex between people who vary in their relationship type may color how ambiguously communicated consent is interpreted. For example, a dyad described as friends would suggest a high degree of interpersonal familiarity but likely not suggest any prior intimacy. In contrast, sex between strangers would be viewed as lacking both familiarity and prior intimacy. Research examining perceptions of sexual communication that vary the degree of familiarity and prior intimacy would provide more insight regarding how consent is interpreted.

In addition to interpretations of consent, contextual information might affect attributions of responsibility for a sexual encounter. Weiner et al.’s (1972) attribution of blame framework has shown that people attribute causality of an event’s occurrence based on a variety of dimensions, such as locus (i.e., internal or external to the person of interest), stability (i.e., how stable or permanent the cause of this event is across different contextual situations), and controllability (i.e., whether the event’s occurrence is able to be controlled; Weiner, 1980, 1985; Weiner et al., 1972). Controllability has been identified as a particularly important factor in determining responsibility attribution in rape cases (e.g., Angelone et al., 2007; Wenger & Bornstein, 2006). Targets are seen as more responsible for their assault when evaluators perceive them as having higher degrees of control (for brief discussion, see Alicke, 2000). Relating this to consent communication, when consent is explicitly given or denied, responsibility attributions should reflect the amount of control evaluators perceive the target to have had in the sexual encounter (e.g., target is seen as more responsible when seen as having more control). However, this pattern may differ when consent is ambiguously communicated. For example, evaluators may blame sexual targets who do not explicitly reject an advance as having had, but not using, additional means of ending the encounter. It is also possible that ambiguous consent communication can result in evaluators relying on other contextual cues that might color perceptions of controllability. For example, male targets may be perceived as having more situational control during an encounter and may be blamed more than their female counterparts. This is another way that consent communication may influence how sexual encounters are interpreted.

Current Studies

Because consent is not always clearly communicated, it is important to evaluate how contextual cues influence perceptions of whether sex is viewed as consensual. In situations in which sexual consent is ambiguous, sex between a dyad described as dating might be rated as more consensual than other relationships that lack the same degree of familiarity and prior intimacy (i.e., friends or strangers). Expectations regarding gender roles might also influence how sexual encounters lacking explicit consent are interpreted, as men are expected to initiate sexual encounters with female targets. However, research has yet to examine how people interpret the nature of these sexual encounters when the roles are reversed. The research question for Experiment 1 was how does relationship type and how consent is communicated influence perceptions of consent. Experiment 2 expanded upon this research question by exploring how the sex of the target and initiator further influenced these perceptions. Based on previous literature, we expected that participants’ perceptions of consent would be more heavily influenced by contextual cues when consent communication was ambiguous. We elected to use a within-subjects approach as it provides increased statistical power, better control for individual differences, and reduces error variance.

Experiment 1

Method

Participants and Design

The current study conformed to a 3 (Consent: consensual, nonconsensual, inferred) × 3 (Relationship Type: dating, friends, strangers) within-subjects design. The dependent variables of interest were participants’ perceptions of the extent to which they believed encounters to be consensual, sexual assault, and desired by the target, as well as their attributions of responsibility for the target and initiator. An a priori power analysis conducted using MorePower (Campbell & Thompson, 2012) indicated that an N of 32 would be needed to detect a medium-sized effect (n_p² = .09) with 80% power using a within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with alpha at 0.05. A sample of 47 undergraduates were recruited during the fall of 2021 in exchange for course credit, and participants had to be over the age of 18 to participate. The average age of the participants was 21.96 (standard deviation [SD] = 7.89) years. The sample consisted of 78.7% women, 19% men, and 0.02% non-binary individuals. Sixty-one percent of participants identified as Caucasian, with 19% as Hispanic, 12.8% as Black, 0.02% as Asian, and 0.04% identifying as other. There was no attrition for this experiment. Both Experiments 1 and 2 were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Sam Houston State University and all American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines were adhered to across both studies.

Vignettes

Thirty-six short vignettes were created for this study with the purpose of manipulating the variables of interest in realistic scenarios. All vignettes described a man who initiated intercourse with a woman in various scenarios. The vignettes differed in whether the sexual encounter was consensual and the relationship between the two individuals. The vignettes described scenarios where both parties explicitly and verbally agreed to the intercourse (consensual), the women explicitly and verbally indicated a refusal of consent (nonconsensual), or the women neither verbally confirmed nor denied wanting to have sex (inferred consent). The inferred consent items were constructed to mirror prior work suggesting that consent is inferred when an individual does not respond to or stop the physical advances, when they do not give a verbal yes or no, or when they continue to engage in the physical contact despite not giving an answer (e.g., Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; Jozkowski et al., 2014a).

In addition to consent, the vignettes varied as a function of the type of relationship between the individuals. The vignettes either described the individuals as being in a romantic relationship, being friends with no indication of past sexual history, or being strangers. This resulted in nine different item types that each participant saw. For each item type, there were 4 different vignettes, such that all participants ultimately read and provided ratings for all 36 vignettes that varied as a function type of how consent was communicated and the relationships of the dyads. Examples of these vignettes can be viewed in Supplemental Appendix A.

Measures

For each vignette, participants were asked to provide responses to a series of questions regarding the nature of the vignette they read. Participants were asked to indicate: (a) how consensual the interaction was, (b) the degree to which they believed the encounter should be labeled as sexual assault, (c) the extent to which the (female) target wanted to have sex with the (male) initiator, and (d) the levels of responsibility attributed to both the target and initiator for the sexual encounter occurring. The perceptions of consent, sexual assault, and sexual wantedness variables were provided on six-point Likert scales with higher scores indicative of stronger beliefs. Responses for the responsibility attribution items were on seven-point Likert scales, with higher scores indicative of more responsibility. Because there were four vignettes per item type, we calculated composite scores corresponding to each of the nine item types. These composite scores for each of the dependent variables were calculated by averaging participants’ responses for the four vignettes (e.g., Consensual/Dating, Consensual/Friends, Consensual/Strangers, etc.). Thus, each participant had nine composite scores corresponding to the nine vignette item types.

Procedure

Participants were recruited through the university’s Sona Psychology Research Participation (PERP) system, and all surveys were administered online through Qualtrics. Participants provided informed consent and were explicitly instructed that they would read a series of short vignettes and that they would answer questions for each vignette. The order of the 36 vignettes was randomized to prevent the influence of order effects on participants’ responses. Due to the within-subjects nature of the design, all participants were presented all 36 vignettes. After providing their responses for one vignette, participants proceeded to the next. Upon providing responses for all of the vignettes, participants answered demographic questions and were thanked and debriefed through a small paragraph at the end of the Qualtrics survey. IRB contact information was provided for questions or concerns. The average time participants took to complete each experiment was 45 minutes.

Results

The goal of the current study was to examine the extent to which relationship status impacts perceptions of sexual encounters. To that end, five separate 3 (Consent: consensual, nonconsensual, inferred) × 3 (Relationship Type: dating, friends, stranger) within-subjects ANOVAs were conducted on each composite score from the dependent variables of interest. Alpha for all analyses were set at .05 and Bonferroni corrections were used for any follow-up analyses. Any violations of sphericity were addressed using Greenhouse–Geisser corrections.

Perceptions of Consent

A 3 (Consent: consensual, nonconsensual, inferred) × 3 (Relationship Type: dating, friends, stranger) within-subjects ANOVA was conducted on participants ratings regarding how consensual they perceived the encounter to be. Significant main effects were observed for both Consent, F(1.15, 52.8) = 1269.03, p < .001, n_p² = .965, and Relationship Type, F(2, 92) = 28.33, p < .001, n_p² = .38 as well as an interaction between Consent and Relationship Type, F(2.67, 122.92) = 18.59, p < .001, n_p² = .29.

Predictably, the main effect for Consent revealed that the consensual vignettes (M = 5.88, standard error [SE] = 0.03) produced higher consent ratings compared to the inferred consent (M = 3.16, SE = 0.12) and nonconsensual (M = 1.10, SE = 0.03), ps < .001, vignettes. The difference in consent ratings between the latter two was also significant, p < .001. The main effect of Relationship Type revealed that vignettes in which the couple was described as dating were perceived to be more consensual (M = 3.48, SE = 0.05) than when they were friends (M = 3.39, SE = 0.05) or strangers (M = 3.25, SE = .05), ps < .05. The difference in consent ratings between the friend and stranger items was also significant, p < .001.

The previously described main effects were qualified by a significant interaction, F(2.67, 122.92) = 18.59, p < .001, n_p² = 0.29. In analyzing the interaction, we examined differences across Relationship Type split by the varying levels of Consent. For consensual sexual encounters, consent ratings did not differ as a function of relationship type, ps > .05. Nonconsensual scenarios were also largely viewed as nonconsensual, with no differences observed between relationship types, ps > .05. In contrast, this interaction was driven by differences in perceived consent for the inferred consent items. For the inferred consent vignettes, participants provided higher consent ratings when the vignette depicted two people who were dating (M = 3.44, SE = 0.13) compared to when they were friends (M = 3.23, SE = 0.13) or strangers (M = 2.80, SE = 0.13), ps < .03. Pairwise comparisons between the latter two items were also significant, p < .001. Means and standard errors for all dependent variables in Experiment 1 can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Errors, and Kurtosis for All Variables in Experiment 1.

	Experiment 1
	Dating		Friends		Strangers
Consent level	M (SE)	Kurtosis	M (SE)	Kurtosis	M (SE)	Kurtosis
Consent
Consensual	5.90 (0.03)	5.96	5.90 (0.04)	18.51	5.83 (0.04)	5.09
Nonconsensual	1.12 (0.04)	4.07	1.05 (0.02)	13.57	1.12 (0.04)	6.91
Inferred	3.44 (0.13)	−0.09	3.23 (0.13)	−0.05	2.80 (0.13)	0.27
Sexual assault
Consensual	1.14 (0.06)	21.83	1.13 (0.06)	14.47	1.13 (0.04)	3.25
Nonconsensual	5.52 (0.09)	1.62	5.79 (0.05)	4.68	5.75 (0.04)	−0.67
Inferred	3.22 (0.15)	0.43	3.32 (0.15)	−0.19	3.93 (0.15)	0.31
Sexual wantedness
Consensual	5.80 (0.04)	3.69	5.87 (0.04)	7.57	5.79 (0.04)	0.92
Nonconsensual	1.21 (0.04)	3.23	1.09 (0.03)	15.55	1.25 (0.05)	−0.28
Inferred	3.39 (0.11)	0.00	3.40 (0.12)	0.55	3.00 (0.12)	0.49
Target blame attribution
Consensual	6.50 (0.11)	6.95	6.57 (0.11)	2.45	6.50 (0.11)	3.61
Nonconsensual	1.23 (0.06)	1.95	1.26 (0.09)	10.64	1.29 (0.07)	7.22
Inferred	3.41 (0.19)	0.08	3.50 (0.18)	0.88	3.09 (0.19)	0.70
Initiator blame attribution
Consensual	6.61 (0.08)	2.42	6.55 (0.10)	2.90	6.49 (0.11)	4.19
Nonconsensual	6.98 (0.01)	30.39	6.96 (0.02)	18.02	6.95 (0.03)	17.67
Inferred	6.58 (0.06)	−0.85	6.61 (0.07)	1.69	6.69 (0.08)	9.24

Note. SE = standard error.

Perceptions of Sexual Assault

The data revealed main effects for Consent, F(1.30, 60) = 921.61, p < .001, η² = .95, and Relationship Type, F(1.75, 80.32) = 27.47 p < .001, η² = .37, as well as an interaction between Consent and Relationship Type, F(3.30, 151.95) = 14.19, p < .001, η² = .24. In line with the perceived consent ratings, the main effect of Consent revealed that participants provided higher sexual assault ratings to nonconsensual scenarios (M = 5.69, SE = 0.05), compared to the ones depicting inferred consent (M = 3.49, SE = 0.14) and consensual (M = 1.13, SE = 0.03) items, ps < .001. The difference in sexual assault ratings between the latter two was also significant, p < .001. The main effect of Relationship Type found that vignettes involving strangers (M = 3.60, SE = 0.06) were more likely to be rated as depicting sexual assault than when the individuals were friends (M = 3.41, SE = 0.06) or a romantic couple (M = 3.29, SE = 0.072), ps < .001. The difference between the latter two was also significant, p = .04.

These main effects were also qualified by a significant interaction, F(3.30, 151.95) = 14.19, p < .001, η² = .24. Again, there were no differences in perceived sexual assault ratings for the consensual items, p > .05. In contrast, participants gave lower sexual assault ratings when the men and women in the nonconsensual vignettes were dating (M = 5.52, SE = 0.09), compared to when they were strangers (M = 5.75, SE = 0.04) or friends (M = 5.79, SE = 0.05), ps < .02. Comparisons between the stranger and friend items were not significant, p < .05. Differences were also observed for the inferred consent vignettes, as participants rated the scenarios as more depictive of sexual assault when the men and women were strangers (M = 3.93, SE = 0.15) than when they were friends (M = 3.32, SE = 0.15) or dating (M = 3.22, SE = 0.15), ps < .001. Pairwise comparisons between the friends and dating conditions were not significant, p = .96.

Perceived Sexual Wantedness

The omnibus ANOVA on participants’ wantedness composite ratings revealed main effects for both Consent, F(1.41, 64.89) = 1393.70, p < .001, η² = .97, and Relationship Type, F(2, 92) = 8.16, p < .001, η² = .15, and an interaction between the two factors was observed for participants’ wantedness ratings, F(3.19, 146.60) = 13.19, p < .001, η² = .22.

The main effect of Consent revealed that participants perceived the women to want the sexual encounter more when the scenarios depicted consensual (M = 5.82, SE = 0.04) compared to implied (M = 3.25, SE = 0.11) and nonconsensual (M = 1.18, SE = 0.03) items, ps < .001. The difference observed between the latter two conditions was also significant, p < .001. The main effect of Relationship Type revealed that participants perceived the women to want the sexual encounter less when the man and woman were strangers (M = 3.33, SE = 0.05) compared to friends (M = 3.45, SE = 0.05) or dating (M = 3.47, SE = 0.05), ps < .05. The difference observed in judgments between the friend and dating items was not significant, p < .05.

We followed up the Relationship Type × Consent interaction by examining participants’ perceptions of the women’s sexual desire as a function of Consent level split by Relationship Type. There were no differences in perceived sexual desire for the consensual vignettes, p = .12. Conversely, when the vignette depicted nonconsensual interactions, participants perceived the woman to want the sexual encounter more when they were strangers (M = 1.25, SE = 0.05) than when they were friends (M = 1.09, SE = 0.03), p = .007. Other pairwise comparisons for rape items were not significant, ps < .05. For the inferred consent items, participants perceived the women to want to have sex less when they were strangers (M = 3.00, SE = 0.12), compared to when they were dating (M = 3.39, SE = 0.11) or friends (M = 3.40, SE = 0.12), ps < .001. The pairwise comparison between the dating and friend conditions was not significant, p > .05.

Responsibility Attributed to the Target

A 3 (Consent: consensual, nonconsensual, inferred) × 3 (Relationship Type: dating, friends, stranger) within-subjects ANOVA was performed on participants’ composite scores of responsibility attributed to the target (i.e., the woman) for the sexual interaction. Main effects of Consent, F(1.61, 74.22) = 666.68, p < .001, η² = .94, and Relationship Type, F(1.75, 80.34) = 3.33, p = .05, η² = .07, were found, as well as an interaction between factors, F(3.34, 153.58) = 4.20, p = .005, η² = .08.

The main effect of Consent suggested that the woman in the vignette was more likely to be rated as responsible for the sexual encounter when the scenarios were consensual (M = 6.52, SE = 0.10) than when they depicted inferred consent (M = 3.33, SE = 0.17) or were nonconsensual (M = 1.26, SE = 0.05), ps < .001. The difference in responsibility attribution between the latter two was also significant, p < .001. The main effect of Relationship Type revealed that when the vignettes depicted the women as strangers (M = 3.62, SE = 0.09) rather than friends (M = 3.78, SE = 0.09) with the men, they were attributed as being less responsible for the sexual encounter, p = .04. All other comparisons were not significant, ps > .05.

Follow-up analyses conducted on the two-way interaction revealed no significant differences for either the consensual or nonconsensual items as a function of Relationship Type, ps > .05. Alternatively, women were rated as being more responsible for the sexual intercourse when they were friends with the men (M = 3.50, SE = 0.18), compared to strangers (M = 3.09, SE = 0.19) for the inferred consent items, p = .001. All other comparisons were not significant, ps > .05.

Responsibility Attributed to the Initiator

Responsibility attributed to the initiator (i.e., the men) in the vignettes was analyzed through conducting a 3 (Consent: consensual, nonconsensual, inferred) × 3 (Relationship Type: dating, friends, stranger) within-subjects ANOVA on related composite scores. A main effect of Consent was found, F(1.57, 72.2) = 17.4, p < .001, such that the men in the nonconsensual vignettes (M = 6.97, SE = 0.02) were rated as being more responsible for the sexual encounter than in the inferred consent (M = 6.62, SE = 0.06) and the consensual vignettes (M = 6.55, SE = 0.09), ps < .001. The difference in responsibility attribution ratings between the inferred and consensual items was not significant, p > .05. All other comparisons were not significant, ps > .05.

Experiment 2

The data from Experiment 1 provide novel insight into how people evaluate perceptions of consent, particularly when sexual consent is not clearly communicated. In these circumstances, participants incorporated contextual information (i.e., relationship type) when making their assessments. Importantly, interactions in Experiment 1 always depicted men acting as the initiators, while the women were always the target of their advances. This initial study is more in line with traditional gender roles in that men are seen as dominant and initiative, with women acting as sexual gatekeepers (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). However, this dynamic does not reflect all instances of sexual interactions. Women also initiate sex with men as the target of their advances; however, this role reversal is perceived as more uncommon than men acting as the initiator with women being the targets (Sanchez et al., 2012). To that end, in addition to relationship and consent level, Experiment 2 manipulated the gender of the target and initiator.

Method

Participants and Design

Experiment 2 conformed to a 3 (Consent: consensual, nonconsensual, inferred) × 2 (Relationship Type: dating, stranger) × 2 (Target Gender: male, female) within-subjects design. An a priori power analysis conducted using the same parameters as Experiment 1 indicated that an N of 52 would be needed. Using the same exclusion criteria as Experiment 1, a sample of 58 undergraduates was collected in exchange for course credit in Spring of 2022, and participants who had completed Experiment 1 were ineligible to participate. The average age of participants was 22.17 (SD = 5.95) years. The sample consisted of 69.0% women, 29.3% men, and 0.02% non-binary individuals. Regarding ethnicity, 37.9% of participants identified as Hispanic, with 36.2% as Caucasian, 18.9% as Black, 0.02% as Asian, and 0.05% identifying as other. There was no attrition for this experiment. Experiment 2 took participants 45 minutes on average to complete.

Vignettes

Experiment 2 used the same vignettes as Experiment 1, but additional, parallel versions were created in which the genders of the initiators and targets were swapped. While Experiment 1 only portrayed men as the initiators of sexual intercourse with female targets, Experiment 2, swapped the gender such that the women were now also the initiators to male targets. This manipulation led to two counterbalanced conditions where each scenario could appear with either the man or woman as the initiator. Participants saw 16 female-initiated and 16 male-initiated vignettes each (32 vignettes total). Like Experiment 1, the vignettes varied as a function of consent and relationship type. Experiment 2 did not include the “friend” relationship items. These items were excluded from Experiment 2 due to the high similarity between the friend and stranger conditions in Experiment 1, as well as to avoid participant fatigue with the additional gender manipulation. The design of this experiment resulted in participants viewing 12 different item types. For each item type, there were 3 different vignettes, such that all participants ultimately read and provided ratings for 36 different scenarios.

Measures and Procedure

Other than the changes outlined above, the measures and procedure used in this study were identical to the first study.

Results

A series of 3 (Consent: consensual, nonconsensual, inferred) × 2 (Relationship Type: dating, stranger) × 2 (Target Gender: male, female) within-subjects ANOVAs were conducted on the dependent variables of interest. Alpha for all analyses were set at .05 and Bonferroni corrections were used for any follow-up analyses. Any violations of sphericity were addressed using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections.

Similar to Experiment 1, composite scores were created from individual ratings for each dependent variable, which were then utilized in a 3 (Consent: consensual, nonconsensual, inferred) × 2 (Relationship Type: dating, stranger) × 2 (Target Gender: male, female) within-subjects ANOVA.

Perceptions of Consent

Our primary research question centered on what factors influence perceptions of sexual consent. We observed main effects for Consent, F(1.18, 67.23) = 1594.49, p < .001, n_p² = 0.97, and Relationship Type, F(1, 57) = 205.19, p < .001, n_p² = 0.78, as well as an interaction between Consent × Relationship Type, F(1.29, 73.70) = 251.91, p < .001, n_p² = 0.82. All other comparisons were not significant, ps > .05.

In line with expectations and prior work, the main effect of Consent revealed that participants consistently provided higher consent ratings when the vignettes depicted consensual sex (M = 5.92, SE = 0.02) compared to items depicting inferred consent (M = 3.13, SE = 0.11) and nonconsensual interactions (M = 1.11, SE = 0.03) items, ps < .001. Additionally, the difference between the latter item types was also significant, p < .001.

The main effect of Relationship Type revealed that participants were more likely to view the sexual activity as consensual when the individuals were described as dating (M = 3.60, SE = 0.05) as opposed to strangers (M = 3.18, SE = 0.05), p < .001.

These main effects were further qualified by an interaction between Consent and Relationship Type. Follow-up analyses were conducted splitting by item type. For consensual vignettes, participants provided higher consent ratings when the couple was described as strangers (M = 5.95, SE = 0.02) compared to dating (M = 5.89, SE = 0.03), t(57) = −2.51, p = .02, d = .33. The inverse was observed for the inferred consent items such that these encounters were seen as being more consensual when sex occurred between romantic partners (M = 3.78, SE = 0.12) as opposed to strangers (M = 2.49, SE = 0.11), t(57) = 16.90, p < .001, d = 2.22. There were no differences as a function of relationship type for nonconsensual items, p = .43. Means and standard errors for all dependent variables in Experiment 2 can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Errors, and Kurtosis for All Variables in Experiment 2.

	Experiment 2
	Dating female target		Dating male target		Stranger female target		Stranger male target
Consent level	M (SE)	Kurtosis	M (SE)	Kurtosis	M (SE)	Kurtosis	M (SE)	Kurtosis
Consent
Consensual	5.90 (0.03)	6.16	5.90 (0.04)	7.08	5.83 (0.04)	5.80	5.94 (0.02)	10.85
Nonconsensual	1.12 (0.04)	8.29	1.05 (0.02)	17.50	1.12 (0.04)	9.72	1.10 (0.03)	12.10
Inferred	3.44 (0.13)	−0.15	3.23 (0.13)	0.23	2.80 (0.13)	0.13	3.75 (0.14)	−0.68
Sexual assault
Consensual	1.14 (0.06)	10.08	1.13 (0.06)	10.66	1.13 (0.04)	9.08	1.13 (0.04)	25.45
Nonconsensual	5.52 (0.09)	6.28	5.79 (0.05)	10.09	5.75 (0.04)	8.12	5.62 (0.08)	9.03
Inferred	3.22 (0.15)	−0.26	3.32 (0.15)	−0.42	3.93 (0.15)	0.29	3.00 (0.14)	−0.61
Sexual wantedness
Consensual	5.80 (0.04)	1.86	5.87 (0.04)	0.06	5.79 (0.04)	4.15	5.73 (0.05)	5.20
Nonconsensual	1.21 (0.04)	6.04	1.09 (0.03)	7.17	1.25 (0.05)	2.19	1.25 (0.06)	3.65
Inferred	3.39 (0.11)	0.08	3.40 (0.12)	−0.22	3.00 (0.12)	0.67	3.72 (0.11)	−0.81
Target blame attribution
Consensual	6.50 (0.11)	0.58	6.57 (0.11)	0.11	6.50 (0.11)	1.08	6.18 (0.15)	1.68
Nonconsensual	1.23 (0.06)	4.01	1.26 (0.09)	1.56	1.29 (0.07)	1.27	1.28 (0.07)	5.06
Inferred	3.41 (0.19)	−0.17	3.50 (0.18)	−0.02	3.09 (0.19)	1.03	3.74 (0.15)	−0.73
Initiator blame attribution
Consensual	6.61 (0.08)	3.00	6.55 (0.10)	2.03	6.49 (0.11)	1.73	6.45 (0.13)	2.25
Nonconsensual	6.98 (0.01)	20.29	6.96 (0.02)	11.56	6.95 (0.03)	15.62	6.70 (0.14)	7.15
Inferred	6.58 (0.06)	1.05	6.61 (0.07)	2.88	6.69 (0.08)	13.61	6.29 (0.16)	2.63

Note. SE = standard error.

Perceptions of Sexual Assault

Analyses of composite scores on sexual assault ratings revealed main effects for Consent, F(1.51, 86.30) = 1037.77, p < .001, n_p² = 0.95, Relationship Type, F(1, 57) = 141.58, p < .001, n_p² = 0.71, and an interaction between the two, F(1.79, 101.78) = 132.27, p < .001, n_p² = 0.70.

The main effect of Consent mirrored earlier analyses such that consensual items (M = 1.16, SE = 0.04) received lower sexual assault ratings compared to the inferred consent (M = 3.53, SE = 0.12) and nonconsensual items (M = 5.64, SE = 0.07), ps < .001. The difference between the inferred consent and rape items were also statistically significant, p < .001. The main effect of Relationship Type was also in line with prior work and the consent analyses. Specifically, participants were more likely to interpret sexual encounters as sexual assault when the pair was described as strangers (M = 3.63, SE = 0.06) rather than as dating (M = 3.26, SE = 0.06), p < .001.

Follow-up analyses on the interaction revealed that participants interpreted nonconsensual items as sexual assault, regardless of the relationship type, p = .12. For the consensual items, participants provided higher sexual assault ratings when the couple was described as dating (M = 1.20, SE = 0.05) as opposed to strangers (M = 1.12, SE = 0.03), t(57) = 2.09, p = .04, d = 0.28. Alternatively, for the inferred consent items, participants were more likely to provide higher sexual assault ratings when they individuals were strangers (M = 4.10, SE = 0.14) compared to dating (M = 2.96, SE = 0.12), t(57) = −14.69, p < .001, d = 1.93.

Target Perceived Sexual Wantedness

Analyses on participants’ composite perceptions of sexual wantedness revealed main effects of Consent, F(2, 114) = 1122.58, p < .001, n_p² = 0.96, Relationship Type, F(1, 57) = 67.79, p < .001, n_p² = 0.54, and interactions for Gender x Consent, F(1.79, 101.72) = 6.54, p = .003, n_p² = 0.10, and Consent × Relationship Type, F(2, 114) = 123.88, p < .001, n_p² = .69.

The main effect of Consent was consistent with prior analyses such that consensual items (M = 5.70, SE = 0.05) were perceived as being more wanted by the target compared to the inferred consent (M = 3.21, SE = 0.09) and nonconsensual items (M = 1.33, SE = 0.06), ps < .001. Participants also indicated that the targets wanted the sexual encounter more when they were described as dating (M = 3.58, SE = 0.05) compared to strangers (M = 3.25, SE = 0.05), p < .001.

The interaction between Gender × Consent revealed some important comparisons. For consensual encounters, participants believed that the female targets (M = 5.76, SE = 0.05) wanted the sexual encounter more than the male targets (M = 5.63, SE = 0.09), t(57) = 3.26, p = .002, d = 0.59. In contrast, male targets (M = 1.42, SE = 0.08) were viewed as wanting the sexual encounter more for rape items than were female targets (M = 1.24, SE = 0.04), t(57) = −2.69, p = .009, d = 0.35. There were no gender differences for the inferred consent items, p = .25.

Follow-up analyses on the Consent × Relationship Type interaction revealed that participants believed targets in the consensual vignettes wanted the sexual encounter more when they were strangers (M = 5.75, SE = 0.05) as opposed to dating (M = 5.64, SE = 0.05), t(57) = 2.49, p = .02, d = 0.33. In contrast, for the inferred items, targets were perceived as wanting the encounter more when the couple was described as dating (M = 3.76, SE = 0.10) compared to strangers (M = 2.66, SE = 0.11), t(57) = −0.31, p < .001, d = 0.04. There was no difference in perceived wanting for the nonconsensual items, p = .76.

Responsibility Attributed to the Target

Analyses on target responsibility attribution composite scores revealed main effects of Gender, F(1, 57) = 6.74, p = .01, n_p² = 0.11, Consent, F(1.79, 102.19) = 67.79, p < .001, n_p² = 0.92, and Relationship Type, F(1, 57) = 17.46, p < .001, n_p² = 0.23, as well as a significant Consent × Relationship Type interaction, F(1.67, 95.30) = 81.19, p < .001, n_p² = 0.59.

The main effect of Gender revealed that participants viewed male targets (M = 3.75, SE = 0.08) as more responsible for the sexual encounter than female targets (M = 3.61, SE = 0.07), p = .01. The main effect of Consent indicated participants believed the target to be more responsible for consensual sex (M = 6.32, SE = 0.12) compared to nonconsensual (M = 1.41, SE = 0.06) or inferred consent items (M = 3.31, SE = 0.13), ps < .001. The difference between the latter two items was also significant, p < .001. Finally, participants indicated that targets who were described as dating the initiator (M = 3.79, SE = 0.07) was more responsible for the sexual encounter compared to those described as strangers (M = 3.57, SE = 0.07), p < .001.

Follow-up analyses on the Consent × Relationship Type interaction revealed that more responsibility was attributed to the target in consensual vignettes when they were strangers (M = 6.42, SE = 0.12) than when dating (M = 6.22, SE = 0.13), t(57) = −3.32, p = .002, d = 0.44. Similarly, participants assigned more responsibility to the target in nonconsensual items when the target and initiator were strangers (M = 1.47, SE = 0.07) compared to dating (M = 1.35, SE = 0.06), t(57) = 2.02, p = .048, d = 0.27. For inferred consent items, participants indicated more responsibility to targets when they were dating the initiators (M = 3.80, SE = 0.13) than when they were strangers (M = 2.82, SE = 0.14), t(57) = 9.08, p < .001, d = 1.19.

Responsibility Attributed to the Initiator

Analyses on initiator responsibility attribution composite scores revealed only one significant comparison: the three-way interaction between Gender × Consent × Relationship Type, p = .004. However, follow-up comparisons collapsed across Relationship Type were not significant, ps > .05.

Results from Experiment 2 largely mirrored those of Experiment 1. However, male targets were perceived as both wanting nonconsensual sexual activity more and also being more responsible for the sexual intercourse than female targets. These findings align with previous research on male victim blame, such that male survivors of sexual assault are blamed more than female survivors (Davies et al., 2001).

General Discussion

Despite the importance of clearly communicating sexual consent, people typically rely on more ambiguous forms of communication such as nonverbal cues of consent. The problem this poses is twofold. First, people may fail to view anything other than an explicit, verbal denial of consent as sexual permission. Second, it might influence how people retrospectively interpret the nature of a sexual encounter. Thus, someone who did not consent but did not provide an outright denial may be blamed for their assault. Given the ambiguous nature of these encounters, the current studies examined how contextual cues like relationship status and gender impacts perceptions of sexual encounters across varying levels of consent. Participants were largely adept at differentiating between consensual and nonconsensual interactions. However, in situations depicting inferred consent, participants appeared to heavily rely on contextual cues when making their judgments.

Although participants largely interpreted explicit, verbal permissions and denials of sex appropriately, they were less clear in the more ambiguous instances of inferred consent. In these situations, participants appeared to rely on the additional contextual information provided. As relationship status increased in familiarity and intimacy (e.g., from strangers to friends to dating), participants increasingly interpreted sexual intercourse between the pairs to be more consensual. Participants’ ratings for perceived consent and sexual assault reflected this notion. Similarly, participants viewed the female targets as wanting the sexual encounter less when they were strangers compared to when they were described as friends or dating. These data are also consistent with previous literature, such that sex between established couples (i.e., dating) was more likely to be interpreted as consensual compared to nonromantic dyads (Shotland & Goodstein, 1992; Willis & Jozkowski, 2019). These perceptions might also explain why more responsibility was attributed to female targets that were friends with the male initiator in inferred consent situations compared to when they were strangers. When consent was not clearly communicated, participants may have believed that targets who had some type of prior relationship had more control in the situation compared to when the initiator and target were strangers. Thus, in these situations, targets were seen as more responsible for the encounter.

While the impact of the relationship was most pronounced for the inferred consent vignettes, participants also used it as a cue when evaluating the nonconsensual vignettes. In Experiment 1, nonconsensual sex between dating dyads received lower sexual assault ratings than those described as friends or strangers. This is consistent with the notion that perceived prior intimacy influences perceptions of sexual encounters. In contrast, participants provided similar sexual assault ratings to nonconsensual sex occurring between friends and strangers, which contradicts the idea that increased interpersonal familiarity would make sexual encounters appear more consensual (Humphreys, 2007). Because prior work has shown people assume couples in relationships to be sexually active (Shotland & Goodstein, 1992), these data suggest that it is the lack of prior sexual intimacy, rather than degree of familiarity, that drives perceptions of whether consent was granted.

Despite the literature consistently showing that women are heavily blamed for their sexual assault (see Van der Bruggen and Grubb, 2014, for a review), the data from these studies presented an additional perspective. In Experiment 1, female targets who were raped were attributed lower rates of responsibility. In contrast, both the male initiator and female target were seen as equally responsible for the consensual sexual encounters. In Experiment 2, male targets were attributed more responsibility for the sexual encounters than female targets. In particular, male targets were rated as being more responsible for nonconsensual sex compared to female targets. These data can also be explained via Weiner’s attribution of blame framework, such that participants might have attributed male initiators and targets more responsibility due to perceptions of them having more control in their encounters (Weiner et al., 1972). Although this was not explicitly tested, future work could examine the extent to which perceived controllability influences these judgments.

Gender also affected judgments concerning whether the targets wanted to engage in sexual intercourse. Despite explicitly refusing the initiator’s sexual advances, male targets were perceived as wanting nonconsensual sex more than female targets. These data are suggestive that male survivors of sexual violence might face more scrutiny compared to female survivors. In contrast, female targets were perceived as wanting to engage in consensual sexual interactions more than the male targets. These data might be reflective of gender norms for both men and women, specifically that men cannot be raped by women and, therefore, want the encounter more than women who were perceived to be raped.

The results from this study provide valuable insight into how people evaluate the nature of sexual encounters. To date, the literature has largely remained silent in how third parties interpret nonverbal communication as a means of sexual consent despite research consistently indicating this is the predominant way that consent is communicated (Blythe et al., 2006; Willis et al., 2019; Winslett & Gross, 2008). These findings show that in instances where consent is unclear, people consider contextual information when making these assessments. The data from the current studies largely support the notion that prior intimacy and increased interpersonal familiarity results in ambiguously communicated sexual interactions as being more likely to be interpreted as consensual. When traditional gender roles are violated, identical behavior between men and women is perceived differently, specifically concerning perceptions of sexual desire and responsibility attribution to the target. Future research should examine other factors that might influence how sexual consent is interpreted by others.

A unique contribution of our study to the literature was its within-subjects approach which allowed for comparisons regarding how participants attributed blame as a function of the type of consent, relationship, and gender. There is limited research contrasting how responsible women and men are seen to be for both rape and consensual sex, with most studies employing a between-subjects approach (e.g., Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; Humphreys, 2007) or using qualitative surveys (e.g., Hall, 1998; Willis & Jozkowski, 2019; but see Jozkowski & Willis, 2022 for an exception). This study not only directly makes this comparison, but the nonconsensual and consensual items serve as anchors for how inferred consent differs from clearly communicated sexual consent within individuals.

While this study provides insight into how contextual cues might be utilized when evaluating whether sexual encounters were consensual, there are several limitations of the current study. First, this study utilizes vignettes as the stimuli, which may not capture all the nuances that might be present in real world interactions. However, experimental vignettes have been shown to be valuable research tools in understanding people’s perceptions and beliefs and serve to provide an initial examination that can later be followed up by more realistic methodology (Barter & Renold, 1999; Hughes & Huby, 2002). The sample was collected from a university population, potentially limiting the generalizability of these findings. This population was comprised of students who had access to SONA systems, limiting the types of students able to participate. However, this population is also important to consider, as college-aged people are at an elevated risk of being victimized by sexual violence (up to 25% of female college students and approximately 8% of male college students; Cantor et al., 2017; Cantor et al., 2020). Additionally, universities have been recently fostering conversation regarding sexual consent with their employment of affirmative consent policies (Bennett, 2016). It is also worth noting that the majority of participants identified as female for both studies. Given that research has shown discrepancies between how men and women communicate consent (Jozkowski et al., 2014a), this is something that future work can consider. This study also did not examine the gender of the participants, which might influence how these interactions are perceived.

In sum, the current study elaborates on the established literature to examine how people interpret consensually ambiguous sexual encounters. When consent was not clearly provided, people utilized contextual cues to assess the nature of consent. The data consistently demonstrated that for instances of inferred consent, participants heavily relied upon relationship history to make their consent assessments. Gender roles also impacted perceptions of these interactions, with men being viewed as more responsible for and being perceived as more likely to enjoy their sexual assault than women in identical scenarios. These data are among the first to examine how people interpret nonverbal cues as indicators of consent as well as tease apart the role of interpersonal familiarity and prior intimacy. By examining other factors that might influence perceptions of consent, researchers can provide a better understanding regarding how people approach these judgments.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605231225515 – Supplemental material for Yes, No, Maybe So: The Effects of Relationship Status on Perceptions of Inferred Consent

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605231225515 for Yes, No, Maybe So: The Effects of Relationship Status on Perceptions of Inferred Consent by Laura A. Pazos, Daniella K. Cash and Tiffany D. Russell in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iDs

Laura A. Pazos

Tiffany D. Russell

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Laura A. Pazos is a second-year PhD student in the Interdisciplinary Social Psychology PhD Program at University of Nevada, Reno. She received her MA from Sam Houston State University and her BS from the University of Southern Mississippi. Her research interests are in perceptions of legal and social issues, such as sexual violence, abortion, and gender identity.

Daniella K. Cash, PhD, is an assistant professor at Sam Houston State University. She graduated from Louisiana State University and her research interests focus on the interplay between social and cognitive psychology within the legal system. This includes factors such as eyewitness identification, jury decision-making, deception detection, and sexual violence.

Tiffany D. Russell, PhD, is an assistant professor of clinical psychology at University of North Dakota. She graduated from the University of North Dakota in 2018. Her research program focuses on violence perpetration, personality disorders, childhood maltreatment, and mental health in underrepresented populations.

References

Alicke

M. D.

(2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556

Angelone

D. J.

Mitchell

Pilafova

(2007). Club drug use and intentionality in perceptions of rape victims. Sex Roles, 57, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9262-9

Bennett

(2016, January 10). Campus sex . . . With a syllabus. New York Times (online edition). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/fashion/sexual-consent-assault-college-campuses.html

Barter

Renold

(1999). The use of vignettes in qualitative research. Social Research Update, 25, 1–4.

Beres

M. A.

(2010). Sexual miscommunication? Untangling assumptions about sexual communication between casual sex partners. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050903075226

Blythe

M. J.

Fortenberry

J. D.

Temkit

M. H.

Orr

D. P.

(2006). Incidence and correlates of unwanted sex in relationships of middle and late adolescent women. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(6), 591–595. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.6.591

Byers

E. S.

Heinlein

(1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551507

Campbell

J. I.

Thompson

V. A.

(2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior research methods, 44(4), 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Townsend

Lee

Bruce

Thomas

(2017). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. The Association of American Universities. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/AAU-Campus-Climate-Survey-FINAL-10-20-17.pdf

10.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Harps

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

Kranz

Herbison

Madden

(2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. The Association of American Universities. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/Revised%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%201-7_(01-16-2020_FINAL).pdf

11.

Davies

Pollard

Archer

(2001). The influence of victim gender and sexual orientation on judgments of the victim in a depicted stranger rape. Violence and Victims, 16(6), 607–619.

12.

Gagnon

J. H.

Simon

(1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Aldine.

13.

Hall

D. S.

(1998). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 1(10), 1–16.

14.

Hickman

S.E.

Muehlenhard

C.L.

(1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551996

15.

Hughes

Huby

(2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(4), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02100.x

16.

Humphreys

T. P.

(2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of relationship history and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701586706

17.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.700739

18.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Wiersma

J. D.

(2015). Does drinking alcohol prior to sexual activity influence college students’ consent?. International Journal of Sexual Health, 27(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2014.951505

19.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Willis

(2020). People perceive transitioning from a social to a private setting as an indicator of sexual consent. Psychology & Sexuality. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1769162

20.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Willis

(2022). People perceive transitioning from a social to a private setting as an indicator of sexual consent. In Nuances of Sexual Consent (pp. 93–106). Routledge.

21.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Manning

Hunt

(2018). Sexual consent in and out of the bedroom: Disjunctive views of heterosexual college students. Women’s Studies in Communication, 41(2), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2018.1470121

22.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Marcantonio

T. L.

Hunt

M. E.

(2017). College students’ sexual consent communication and perceptions of sexual double standards: A qualitative investigation. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 49(4), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12041

23.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

Sanders

S. A.

Dennis

Reece

(2014a). Gender differences in heterosexual college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(8), 904–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.792326

24.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Sanders

Peterson

Z. D.

Dennis

Reece

(2014b). Consenting to sexual activity: The development and psychometric assessment of dual measures of consent. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 437–450. https://doi/org/10.1007/s10508-013-0225-7

25.

King

B. M.

Fallon

M. R.

Reynolds

E. P.

Williamson

K. L.

Barber

Giovinazzo

A. R.

(2021). College students’ perceptions of concurrent/successive nonverbal behaviors as sexual consent. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520905544

26.

Koss

M. P.

(1988). Hidden rape: Incidence, prevalence, and descriptive characteristics of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of college students. Sexual Assault, 2, 3–25.

27.

Kubota

Nakazawa

(2022). Concept and implications of sexual consent for education: a systematic review of empirical studies. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2022.2039617

28.

Lewis

Bergenfeld

Thu Trang

Minh

T. H.

Sales

J. M.

Yount

K. M.

(2021). Gender norms and sexual consent in dating relationships: a qualitative study of university students in Vietnam. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 24(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2020.1846078

29.

Lim

G. Y.

Roloff

M. E.

(1999). Attributing sexual consent. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 1–23. https://doi.org/00909889909365521

30.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Hollabaugh

L. C.

(1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 872–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.872

31.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Rodgers

C. S.

(1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1471-6402.1998.tb00167.x

32.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Humphreys

T. P.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2016). The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 457–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1146651.

33.

O’Byrne

Hansen

Rapley

. (2008). If a girl doesn’t say ‘no’. . .”: young men, rape and claims of ‘insufficient knowledge. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 168–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.922

34.

Sanchez

D. T.

Fetterolf

J. C.

Rudman

L. A.

(2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.653699

35.

Shotland

R. L.

Goodstein

(1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(6), 756–764. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167292186012

36.

Turchik

J. A.

Edwards

K. M.

(2012). Myths about male rape: A literature review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023207

37.

Van der Bruggen

Grubb

. (2014). A review of the literature relating to rape victim blaming: An analysis of the impact of observer and victim characteristics on attribution of blame in rape cases. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.008

38.

Van Wie

V. E.

Gross

A. M

. (2001). The role of woman’s explanations for refusal on men’s ability to discriminate unwanted sexual behavior in a date rape scenario. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012215708435

39.

Vannier

S. A.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2010). Sex without desire: Characteristics of occasions of sexual compliance in young adults’ committed relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 47(5), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903132051

40.

Walsh

Honickman

Valdespino-Hayden

Lowe

S. R.

(2019). Dual measures of sexual consent: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Internal Consent Scale and External Consent Scale. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(6), 802–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1581882

41.

Weiner

(1980). A cognitive (attribution)—emotion–action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.2.186

42.

Weiner

(1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

43.

Weiner

Heckhausen

Meyer

W.-U.

(1972). Causal ascriptions and achievement behavior: A conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032307

44.

Wenger

A. A.

Bornstein

B. H.

(2006). The effects of victims’ substance use and relationship closeness on mock jurors’ judgments in an acquaintance rape case. Sex Roles, 54, 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9014-2

45.

Wiederman

M. W.

(2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1066480705278729

46.

Willis

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2019). Sexual precedent’s effect on sexual consent communication. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 1723–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1348-7

47.

Willis

Blunt-Vinti

H. D.

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2019). Associations between internal and external sexual consent in a diverse national sample of women. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.029

48.

Willis

Murray

K. N.

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2021a). Sexual consent in committed relationships: A dyadic study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 47(7), 669–686. https://doi/org/10.1080/0092623X.2021.1937417

49.

Willis

Jozkowski

K. N.

Bridges

A. J.

Veilleux

J. C.

Davis

R. E.

(2021b). Assessing the within-person variability of internal and external sexual consent. The Journal of Sex Research, 58(9), 1173–1183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1913567

50.

Winslett

A. H.

Gross

A. M.

(2008). Sexual boundaries: An examination of the importance of talking before touching. Violence Against Women, 14(5), 542–562. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077801208315527

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB